The People V The Corporations/Wall St/The Mic

[sabrina 1]

That's what this election is about.

It's simple.

Anyone TAKING Corporate Money facilitated by Citizens United goes under the heading:

Corporate Candidate!

Anyone REFUSING to accept Corporate Money goes under the heading:

People's Candidate!

I see only ONE Candidate matching his WORDS to his ACTIONS.

I am an actual PERSON, not a Corporation claiming PERSONHOOD!

So it's only natural that I am supporting the PEOPLE'S Candidate.

All the rest is NOISE!

GO BERNIE!

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Hillary appears to be the People's Candidate at this point

More people are supporting her than any other candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251706039

[sabrina 1]

4. Lol, you mean approx 70% of 32% of the entire electorate. That translates to approx. 27%

of the entire electorate. I don't think you can win anything with those numbers.

Bernie otoh, his support simply cannot be polled at this point. The non voters I and tens of thousands of others are signing up won't be polled until they cast their votes.

But keep on counting on those old fashioned, out of date polls.

And we the people will keep on gathering more and more support for the people's candidate.

'Hillary ... the people's candidate'

[Cali_Democrat]

5. So...Bernie is filled with so much awesome, that his support cannot even be polled

Got it.

[NanceGreggs]

20. Well, exactly.

Now you're finally getting it.

BS's support is so astronomical, polling organizations are having their calculators re-calibrated in order to reflect numbers currently not yet known to the scientific community.

[sabrina 1]

35. I wonder, what does the scientific community think of scientific polls that are so outdated in their

methodology, which they themselves admit, they are missing a majority of today's 21st Century voters who don't possess landlines eg.

And they include non candidates in polls supposed to be gauging Candidates.

Can't get an answer to that question no matter how many times I ask it.

I'm fine with the new methods of polling people. We have amazing ways now to gauge what the people think.

Bernie of course won the debate by a landslide.

No wonder DWS has done her best to hide him from the voters!

[NanceGreggs]

56. You think I would engage in a discussion about polls ...

... with someone who actually believed a poll that said BS would win in all 50 states?

You just keep dreamin', dear heart.

[sabrina 1]

23. Well, if you say so. I wouldn't go that far though. He did win the debates, but it was

not about 'awesomeness' on a personal level. Most of us are not particularly into fandom when it comes to choosing candidates for political office . To each their own I suppose.

[Live and Learn]

27. I don't think it is worth arguing with those that feel it is okay to buy elections.

Those of us that don't aren't buying the corporate spin either.

[BainsBane]

9. Bernie's supporters can't be polled?

Why is that? Are they invisible?

Romney had his own alternative view of polling as well, and the margin between Obama and him was narrow. Look where it got him.

You call Sanders the people's candidate, which dismisses the majority of Americans who disagree with you as less than people. His supporters average incomes of $80k plus a year. I do not agree that they are superior to those who have less, regardless of how certain some may be that they are the only ones who matter.

It's interesting to see the so-called left dismiss science and evidence the way the right does about global warming and any issue that doesn't conform to their preexisting views. Well, interesting isn't exactly the right word, but it's something.

[sabrina 1]

24. I do call him the people's candidate, because it's a fact.

[davidn3600]

43. The people's candidate??? LOL!!!

Have you looked at her donor list?

[Avalux]

46. Yes, she 'appears' to be, and that's how the game is played unfortunately.

Hillary is a corporatist and will do her duty to move us further along the Oligarchy path. She will do nothing that will truly help the people.

Corp donations aren't free.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. Yes, Go Bernie!

[NCTraveler]

3. "That's what this election is about."

It's about different things to different people. It also clear you aren't aware of what corporate money often means in politics. In addition, the dichotomy you offer is opinion and a very thin one at that. Things presented as dichotomous that truly aren't often appear that way.

But this is just noise, so keep at it. Sanders is an excellent person to support.

[sabrina 1]

10. Oh I know what Corporate money in politics means.

It bought us the current government we have which got us the Wars in the ME, the Wall St Global Crash, stagnant wages, Privatized HC, cuts to Social Safety Nets, the Welfare Reform Bill, Tough on Crime and so much more.

Everything is someone's opinion. None are more important any other others. And frankly we've been listening to 'expert' opinions for so long with very little to back them up, in my experience, ordinary people's opinions have proven to be far more accurate in the long run.

Maybe because we actually EXPERIENCE the results of the opinions of all those 'experts'.

[NCTraveler]

13. I agree with every single word you wrote here. Nt

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, sabrina.

[99th_Monkey]

7. Excellent OP sabrina1. This needs to be spelled out, just like you did, in the next debate

Unless Bernie (or O'Malley) call Clinton out on her Wall St./MIC/Private Prisons BIG-donor base,
she can continue to float "progressive" sounding sound bites, and get away with it.

Until she is clearly & directly challenged to explain how she's going to get Wall St. to "CUT IT OUT",
while taking million$ from them and their super-PACs, she gets a free pass to continue to deceive
voters on free prime time TV.

Go Bernie!!!

[sabrina 1]

11. Well, she SAYS she oppposes Citizens United, and then takes the money made posssible by Citizens

United. In my world that's called 'do I look an idiot or what'?

I think this is why we are being deprived of debates. Because the more we have, the more these things WILL come out.

[99th_Monkey]

15. Yep, so we had better make the best of what few debates we DO have. nt

[BainsBane]

17. False.

I already provided evidence on that, which you ignored to go on to them repeat the same false claims. You don't even know what Citizens United is.

It is in fact illegal for candidates to take money from corporations. Citizens United ruled that corporations are allowed to spend their own money on candidates. It didn't authorize candidates to take "corporate money."

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

Go look at the FEC filings for last quarter or the previous one. See if you see one corporation listed under Clinton's donors. Go on now. I can't wait to see what you turn up.

[sabrina 1]

25. Pssst, Super Pacs!

[BainsBane]

44. Super PACS: Bet on Bernie 2016, Billionares for Bernie

Collective Actions . . . A Super PAC run by one of Bernie's former staffers.

But Sanders isn't being entirely straight when he says he doesn't have a super PAC. By law, such entities can't directly coordinate with the candidates they back, so many are run by close confidantes and former aides well acquainted with the candidates' strategy and message.

Such is the case with Collective Actions PAC, which is operated by Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), who previously served as Sanders' campaign coordinator and press assistant. Founded in January 2014 as Draft Bernie, the PAC maintains the Run Bernie Run Facebook and Twitter accounts and, according to its website, plans to invest in online advertising.

Pearson says his Super PAC will fund grassroots projects to spread Sanders' message, but he admits it will also serve a more traditional role: skirting fundraising limits by taking contributions from those who've already donated the maximum $2,700 to Sanders' official campaign.

"We're trying to raise big checks, yes," Pearson says. "We'll see how successful I will be."

Collective Actions doesn't have to file a report with the Federal Election Commission until the end of July, and Pearson won't reveal how much he's raised. But in a letter he sent the FEC last month, he wrote that the PAC "has a number of large donors who are interested" in contributing.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783

Just how independent Collective Actions is from the Sanders campaign isn't entirely clear. Spokesman Michael Briggs ignored repeated questions about the matter. Pearson says he's briefed campaign field director Phil Fiermonte, a close friend.

"I said, 'Well, I think I'm going to keep the PAC going because I think there's some real opportunities here,'" Pearson recalls. "We both sort of chuckled [at] how absurd it all is, and that was it. I know that they're aware of all of it."

Surely, though, Sanders would prefer Pearson to ditch his super PAC now that the candidate has decided he doesn't want one, right?

Not necessarily. When Seven Days asked about it in March 2014, the campaign defended Pearson's move.

"Until we overturn Citizens United, the suggestion that opponents of right-wing Republicans should unilaterally disarm and not use the tools available to them is absurd," Fiermonte said in a written statement. "To suggest that there is any comparison between a small, grassroots organization in Vermont and the multi-billion-dollar political machine bankrolled by the Koch brothers is preposterous."

[sabrina 1]

48. Did you read your last paragraph, and you missed what Sanders had to say about Super Pacs

for him. He doesn't WANT THEM. He has said so, repeatedly.

Now back to the facts.

David Brock is running a Hillary Super Pac which he has attempted to use for his smear campaigns. Who is funding that Super Pac? No one knows. How much money does it have? No one knows, YET.

Brock was caught trying to PLANT lies about Sanders in the Media, anonymously.

THIS is what Hillary's Super Pacs are doing.

Using old Right Wing liars like Brock, who has attended events with Hillary, coordinating with her campaign, using a loophole in the law to do so.

Has she condemned, as Bernie has, Super Pacs such as Brock's?

Nice try, but you are so off the mark. This isn't a good talking point for you.

Btw, where's the link to the first excerpt?

[Live and Learn]

29. Oh my!

[sabrina 1]

33. I know! That was my reaction also. I would post some links, but really, it's all been said, proven

and we know enough about the Corporate funding.

But in a way I find it kind of fascinating to watch the efforts to turn fact into fiction. As if that is possible. But it gets A for Effort at least!

[Live and Learn]

34. True and Kudos to you for trying. I gave up long ago. nt

[Avalux]

47. Are you really so naive to not understand the reason for SuperPACs?

Of course Corps don't donate directly to candidates. Go ahead and try to tell me that SuperPACs act independently from the candidate. Go ahead.

[Live and Learn]

28. I do believe she does think we are that stupid. nt

[BainsBane]

8. MIC includes Lockheed-Martin

and Sanders continues to support the $800 million boondoggle that is the F-35. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

"Anyone taking corporate money." It is in fact illegal for candidates to take money from corporations. Citizens United ruled that corporations are allowed to spend their own money on candidates. It didn't authorize candidates to take "corporate money."

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

If you claim to care about issues, I would think you would bother to inform yourself about them.

It is factually false that Clinton is the candidate of Wall Street. As Paul Krugman noted, that money is going almost exclusively to the GOP.

For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t. . . .

Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican.

To understand the politics of financial reform and regulation, we have to start by acknowledging that there was a time when Wall Street and Democrats got on just fine. Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs became Bill Clinton’s most influential economic official; big banks had plenty of political access; and the industry by and large got what it wanted, including repeal of Glass-Steagall.

This cozy relationship was reflected in campaign contributions, with the securities industry splitting its donations more or less evenly between the parties, and hedge funds actually leaning Democratic.

But then came the financial crisis of 2008, and everything changed. . .

While this is good news for taxpayers and the economy, financiers bitterly resent any constraints on their ability to gamble with other people’s money, and they are voting with their checkbooks. Financial tycoons loom large among the tiny group of wealthy families that is dominating campaign finance this election cycle — a group that overwhelmingly supports Republicans. Hedge funds used to give the majority of their contributions to Democrats, but since 2010 they have flipped almost totally to the G.O.P.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=1

Clinton has a far more detailed and thorough plan for reforming Wall Street than Sanders does. In fact, he has yet to develop a policy statement on it other than reinstating a law from 1933, which Elizabeth Warren has said is more a goal and rhetorical device for talking to the public than an essential part of Wall Street reform, which is in fact complicated because the fuckers manage to wiggle their way around any and every regulation. This is Clinton's plan, very much opposed by Wall Street, as Krugman notes above. It also deals with the shadow banks that caused the 2008 collapse, entities that would not be effected by Glass-Steagal.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform

Now I understand you prefer to keep things in the realm of slogans rather than a discussion of actual policy, but the information is here for those who do care.

[sabrina 1]

12. No, Clinton doesn't have a plan to reform Wall St. It's hard to do that when you are part of Wall St

[BainsBane]

14. I'm sorry you're not interested

in the actual policy or the actual facts. Clearly you read none of it because the evidence directly contradicts your claims. I knew you wouldn't, but it's there for those who do care something other than empty and demonstrably false slogans.


I take it that you're on board with the F-35 and drones now since Bernie supports them. Your inclusion of the MIC above was particularly unwise. Naturally you didn't bother to look into that either.

[sabrina 1]

18. No, I've read the talking points before. So I see the introduction and I know where it's going.

I'm not interested in Corporate funded talking points. I'm interested in the records of candidates on major issues. While no candidate is going to have a perfect record, I look for the one who has the most consistent, most Progressive record throughout their careers.

I am cutting through all the noise, the smears, the attacks etc because we are not interested in them. Money buys all that nonsense.

I am not expecting to ever find a perfect candidate.

And your post shows me that it is very difficult for the smear campaigners to attack Sanders so they focus and then repeat, many times out of context, one or two issues where they think they 'got him' only to find they are not dealing with idiots.

Notice I didn't post a ton of links to all Hillary's bad decisions, her bad associations etc.

I know where SHE stands and where Sanders stands on the issue I care about.

So I don't waste time re-reading the packaged talking points, I've already studied them.

Biggest issue for me, THE MONEY THAT IS CORRUPTING our Electoral System.

And over 80% of the population state that for them that is the most important issue.

Hillary TAKES that money, Bernie doesn't.

That's the first step, let's get it out of our electoral system, then we can go from there.

If you want to talk about, let's do it.

[BainsBane]

19. Making campaign finance about one individual politician

Is the surest way I can think of to maintain the current system. I provided actual evidence. I am not a corporation. The article on Lockheed Martin is a local VT, reader-funded paper. It includes an interview with Sanders, using his own words. There is nothing corporate or talking pointish about it. You can also look at his voting record on the F-35. The congressional record is not in fact a corporate conspiracy. They are public documents than enable the public to inform itself. That you continually insult anyone who disagrees with you as using corporate talking points, with absolutely no evidence to support the smear, shows how little respect you have for your fellow citizens. And naturally you ignore evidence because it doesn't support your talking points..

Money is indeed corrupting our system. Yet you pretend that the solution is to key Clinton out of office and elect Sanders, who not only has authorized PACS but benefits from a number of Super PACS raising money for him, including Billionaires for Bernie. Yet all that matters is Bernie. You don't even bother to inform yourself of the basic SCOTUS decisions and go about repeating false claims that show you don't understand the law at all. I find that difficult to square with your claim that you care about the issue. I care very much about the issue, which is why I have taken a small amount of time to learn what the law actually is. I submit that making that concern all about one man and not the issue in fact undermines reform, is deliberately divisive and discourages people coming together to work on changing the system. You have made clear your fundamental goal is to get Sanders elected, and you systematically insult everyone who disagrees, asks questions, or bothers to provide evidence as "corporate" and other than "real people," because they don't hold one man as infallible.

For some reason you seem entirely unconcerned with where your tax dollars go, and the idea that someone who works in some position in a bank on Wall Street might make a personal donation of $200-$2700 to Clinton bothers you more than the fact that Sanders supports many hundreds of billions to Lockheed-Martin for the F-35 that repeatedly blows up and kills pilots. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

Whatever, it doesn't much matter. Sanders has dropped an average of 6 points since the debate. So by all means, more debates.
It enables the American people to see where the candidates stand on issues, assess their knowledge and preparedness for the presidency.

Oh, I just wanted to let you know that you were the very first person that got me to start to think favorably about Hillary Clinton. For years you have been posting tirades against her, some in OPs and some in off topic responses to me within threads, that I thought: gee, I ought to have a look at Clinton. So I thank you, and Hillary Clinton thanks you for my modest donations.

[sabrina 1]

22. Fascinatinng diatribe. Mostly about ME. I will use that to gauge your ability to get things right

or wrong. If there's one subject I know about, it's ME. Lol!

I have never seen a post that got just about everything so wrong, and I know this for sure, because, as I said, the subject of your post being ME gives me a unique ability to say that.

You 'submit' something that has zero relationship to me or to what I have stated and will continue to state. That the #1 issue for over 80% of Americans is the Money in Politics.

I am not interested in making things that are very simple, complex.

This whole election is about the People V Money in Politics.

Now, to some FACTS.

Super Pacs. Every heard of such things? Citizens United/Super Pacs. Dark Money, untold amounts pouring into Super Pacs. A clever way they think to pour money into the campaigns of Corporate Candidates.

See David 'Blinded by the Money' Brock. I just felt a little sick actually even mentioning the name of the Right Wing slime.

CU makes it impossible for us to know how much money and from whom it is coming, is pouring into Hillary's Super Pacs.

She has NOT, unlike Sanders, stated that she does not WANT a Super Pac, BECAUSE we all know, that is the door through which all that Dark Money flows.

See how Brock tried to use Hillary's Super Pac. He got caught, was unable to anonymously PLANT his attempt at a smear, another feeble attempt to play the RED CARD, in the media.

Thankfully his slimy sneaky dirty trick BACKFIRED and instead helped raise over $3 Million dollars for Sanders.

Negative talking points, such as your 'Lockheed Martin' stuff, get PLANTED in the media. Thank Brock btw, for highlighting how they do it.

As for the rest of your post, I know who I am. But thanks for trying to introduce me to someone I wouldn't recognize if we bumped into each other.

Here, let me help so you don't waste any more time. You vote for whomever you wish. I will do the same.

And it is people such as yourself who every day convince me I have made the absolutely correct choice. Though no one has ever influenced to MAKE such a choice.

Really you shouldn't be so easily influenced by people you don't know when it comes to choosing a candidate for elected office. I am flattered I have such influence over your choices, but really, it isn't about ME.

[Skidmore]

38. I don't know.

I see quite a bit of simplistic attributions in your post and rejection of the complexity of laws deliberately designed to be so. I found BainsBane's discussion of the law to be informative. Choosing a candidate, no matter how you feel about him/her, doesn't necessarily mean that he/she has a firm grasp of the law.

Vote for whomever you want for whatever reasons. We bow to your superior intellect.

[sabrina 1]

49. I saw no factual representation in BB's post, just a repeat of the same old

talking points we have seen before. She has repeated what has already been refuted re Sanders and Super Pacs.

She is totally wrong that Clinton isn't benefiting from Citizens United, hell, even her campaign isn't silly enough to deny THAT.

She and other candidates benefit through the use of Super Pacs, THAT is the worst aspect of CU.

BainsBain didn't seem to understand the law at all.

I need no one's permission to vote for whomever I believe is the best choice for this country, but thanks for your condescension.

Nor have I made any claim to superior knowledge. Your friend BB on the other hand appears to always, at least in her estimation, make that claim along with long personal attacks on whoever she is addressing. Not that I mind, baseless personal attacks harm only the one engaging in them.

These are the kind of comments that leave the world of reality and facts, and discredit everything else in such comments.

[Skidmore]

50. And how do you understand the law

better or with more experience? Or how are your assertions not talking points? I would also point out that Sanders is a career politician and not an outsider. I give him as much latitude as I give any career politician trying to make that claim.

[sabrina 1]

52. I sure understand it better than BB does. Even Hillary would not claim not to be benefiting from

Citizens United. You don't have to have superior knowledge to know that ALL political candidates are benefiting from that anti-Constitutional SC Decision.

Except Bernie Sanders.

He matches his ACTIONS to his words. That's the difference between Bernie and Hillary.

He is consistent on the issues, she is not.

And that is why he is gathering support daily as more and more people get to know him.

[George II]

53. Sanders has been in Congress for 25+ years. The only thing that might make him an.....

....."outsider" is that he's been unable to find a party that would have him.

[BainsBane]

39. i have at least twice posted the summary of Citizens United for you

from Scotus blog, and you have deliberately ignored it. I will not state it again. Why you are so uninterested in the laws regulating campaign finance, I have no idea. It is impossible to reform a system when one refuses to acquaint oneself with its laws. I understand your candidate is prone to simplistic tropes that assume the electorate is unable to keep more than one ruling in their head at at time. That is indeed unfortunate, but evidently he knows his audience.

Citizens United does enable Super Pacs to spend money on elections but not to give it to candidates. The Super Pacs spend it themselves. Your very statement that Clinton "takes money" from corporations is false, as Sanders statement that he doesn't "take money" from Super Pacs is an empty statement since no candidate does. There are a number of Super Pacs raising and spending money to promote Bernie as we speak. The ruling that enables unlimited spending is not Citizens United but McCutcheon vs. FEC.
Ever hear of it?

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Holding: Because aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees do not further the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption, while at the same time seriously restricting participation in the democratic process, they are invalid under the First Amendment.

Judgment:

Reversed and remanded

, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on April 2, 2014. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/

The nexus between money and political campaigns is in fact enabled by a series of rulings, not just Citizens United. McCutcheon is every bit as corrosive.

You discuss the problem of dark money. Hillary Clinton agrees it is a problem and has a proposal to require disclosure of donors.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-announces-campaign-finance-reform-plan.html?_r=0
She likewise supports overturning Citizens United, but unlike Sanders she doesn't claim she can personally overturn it magically upon being elected. She has said she will appoint justices who will vote to overturn Citizens United as well as the the other rulings that enable unlimited spending and dark money.

That of course doesn't interest you. You insist she is the enemy and Bernie the savior. I submit that if your primary concern was the issue rather than Bernie himself, you would be glad that three Democratic candidates, including O'Malley, supported making SCOTUS appointments that would lead to the overturning of those decisions. Instead, you deliberately and willfully ignore the other candidates' positions and insist only Bernie can save us. Now, you may think him more credible on the issue, which is your prerogative, but to time and time against mistake the law and Clinton's position on it is simply false. Like many who despise Clinton, you are entirely uninterested in her actually proposals or voting record and instead resort to empty projection. That is an emotional approach to politics and of course you are within your rights to vote based on any way you want, as I am within my rights to correct the record.

No, it isn't about you, but I thought I'd let you know that your posts don't fall on deaf ears.
Additionally, you justify your opposition to Clinton based on the company she keeps, claiming she is beholden to Wall Street. Frankly, I find her associates far less concerning than Sanders'. We have been told that Sanders will not forget his supporters when making appointments. How he runs his campaign, how his supporters deal with dissent, how they eagerly repeat false information without bothering to verify it, how they mobilized against Black Lives matters tells me he would be subject to negative influence. That response to BLM was the final straw: I saw so-called progressives show their inner souls. Even before then, I saw one person insist that "corporations" had sent women and people of color into the party to divert it from its true mission. Just as the GOP is subject to their Tea Party base, Sanders would be subject to his. Of course this is all hypothetical because it is increasingly clear he will never be the nominee, but I will not play a role in empowering that element.

[sabrina 1]

51. I hope my posts don't fall on deaf ears, in fact you need not worry at all, I KNOW they don't.

Now back again to you assuming you alone are familiar with Citizens United.

We all know, thanks for your wrong assumption again, about the limits on donations. The fact that you assume so much about other people's knowledge of the law, is quite remarkable.

You have totally avoided addressing the real issue of Citizens United which is the reason for the enormous opposition to it.

You appear to be unaware of the law completely.

Not interested in your 'feeling's about a totally off topic issue. I WAS DISGUSTED BY THAT just so you know, and so was every minority DUer who watched it. But who, when they tried to raise THEIR voices were either ignored or called names by the so-called 'supporters' of THEIR cause.

You are in THIS thread and once again, trying to drag the nastiness engaged in by a few here who lost all credibility as a result and, I am told and have seen, unfortunately, removed themselves to their own tiny corner of the internet where there is no one allowed to call them out. That's fine, I hope they are enjoying slamming everyone with no restrictions. Seems like an awful way to spend one's time, but thankfully I never have to see it or know about it.

Shameful behavior, but not my business and I would thank you not to drag your nonsense into my threads at least. I choose not to associate with people who engage in such tactics, I would like that decision to be respected.

[Live and Learn]

30. +1 nt

[treestar]

55. But you have not included BB's information

And in this point you admit you are not the least interested in the facts.

There is cognitive dissonance between the slogans and Hillary's plans regarding Wall Street and Bernie's support of some military spending (not that that is a problem if that was what it took to represent Vermont).

[George II]

21. Here are a number of articles that are on Sanders' own campaign website concerning his support....

...for the F-35.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/search/?q=F-35&start=0&as_sitesearch=&page=1

[sabrina 1]

31. And???

[BainsBane]

40. Wow.

Does that mean Bernie's website has been taken over by the corporate conspiracy?

[George II]

41. As President Eisenhower would put it - the Military Industrial Complex.

[BainsBane]

42. Yes, but the OP insists the claim Bernie supports the F-35

is a "corporate talking point." Yet there it is on Sanders own website. I'm so confused.

[zappaman]

45. I guess the OP was confused but now has learned something.

See, this is why I love DU!
People can learn new things!

[treestar]

54. Thank you for the information

about reality. We do indeed have a lot of sloganeering going on when it comes to these subjects.

[Juicy_Bellows]

16. You are correct of course.

I can't understand why every liberal isn't trying their damn best to get Bernie the nomination, if we all fail in that endeavor then Clinton gets the nod and we back that horse. If and only if that happens should Hillary be on the table.

She should be the back-up plan not the front runner unless you like how turd way shit smells.

Cheers!

[sabrina 1]

26. Thank you, just one quibble. I'd rather have O'Malley as the back-up plan.

[Juicy_Bellows]

36. Can't argue with that! nt.

[Live and Learn]

32. K&R nt

[840high]

37. k/r